1.Prevention in the United States Affordable Care Act.
Charles M PRESTON ; Miriam ALEXANDER
Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health 2010;43(6):455-458
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law on March 23, 2010 and will fundamentally alter health care in the United States for years to come. The US is currently one of the only industrialized countries without universal health insurance. The new law expands existing public insurance for the poor. It also provides financial credits to low income individuals and some small businesses to purchase health insurance. By government estimates, the law will bring insurance to 30 million people. The law also provides for a significant new investment in prevention and wellness. It appropriates an unprecedented $15 billion in a prevention and public health fund, to be disbursed over 10 years, as well as creates a national prevention council to oversee the government's prevention efforts. This paper discusses 3 major prevention provisions in the legislation: 1) the waiving of cost-sharing for clinical preventive services, 2) new funding for community preventive services, and 3) new funding for workplace wellness programs. The paper examines the scientific evidence behind these provisions as well as provides examples of some model programs. Taken together, these provisions represent a significant advancement for prevention in the US health care system, including a shift towards healthier environments. However, in this turbulent economic and political environment, there is a real threat that much of the law, including the prevention provisions, will not receive adequate funding.
Health Care Reform/*legislation & jurisprudence
;
Humans
;
Insurance, Health/*legislation & jurisprudence
;
Medicaid/legislation & jurisprudence
;
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
;
Preventive Health Services/*legislation & jurisprudence
;
United States
2.Radiation up-regulates the expression of VEGF in a canine oral melanoma cell line.
Irene FLICKINGER ; Barbara C RUTGEN ; Wilhelm GERNER ; Ivana CALICE ; Alexander TICHY ; Armin SAALMULLER ; Miriam KLEITER
Journal of Veterinary Science 2013;14(2):207-214
To evaluate radiosensitivity and the effects of radiation on the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and VEGF receptors in the canine oral melanoma cell line, TLM 1, cells were irradiated with doses of 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 Gray (Gy). Survival rates were then determined by a MTT assay, while vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-1 and -2 expression was measured by flow cytometry and apoptotic cell death rates were investigated using an Annexin assay. Additionally, a commercially available canine VEGF ELISA kit was used to measure VEGF. Radiosensitivity was detected in TLM 1 cells, and mitotic and apoptotic cell death was found to occur in a radiation dose dependent manner. VEGF was secreted constitutively and significant up-regulation was observed in the 8 and 10 Gy irradiated cells. In addition, a minor portion of TLM 1 cells expressed vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-1 intracellularly. VEGFR-2 was detected in the cytoplasm and was down-regulated following radiation with increasing dosages. In TLM 1 cells, apoptosis plays an important role in radiation induced cell death. It has also been suggested that the significantly higher VEGF production in the 8 and 10 Gy group could lead to tumour resistance.
Animals
;
Apoptosis/*radiation effects
;
Cell Line, Tumor/radiation effects
;
Dogs
;
Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation
;
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay/veterinary
;
Melanoma/genetics/metabolism
;
Mouth Neoplasms/genetics/metabolism
;
Radiation Tolerance
;
Tetrazolium Salts/metabolism
;
Thiazoles/metabolism
;
Up-Regulation/*radiation effects
;
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A/genetics/metabolism/*radiation effects
;
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor-1/genetics/metabolism/*radiation effects
;
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor-2/genetics/metabolism/*radiation effects
3.Assessment of mechanical bowel preparation prior to nephrectomy in the minimally invasive surgery era: insights from a national database analysis in the United States
Stephen SCHMIT ; Kamil MALSHY ; Alexander HOMER ; Borivoj GOLIJANIN ; Christopher TUCCI ; Rebecca ORTIZ ; Sari KHALEEL ; Elias HYAMS ; Dragan GOLIJANIN
Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery 2024;27(3):165-171
Purpose:
This study was performed to evaluate the association between mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and perioperative outcomes following nephrectomy in the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) era.
Methods:
All partial and radical nephrectomies between 2019 and 2021 from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were evaluated. Thirty-day perioperative outcomes were compared between groups where MBP was performed vs. not, in both the MIS and open surgery (OS) cohorts. A propensity score matching technique was utilized within MIS cases to control for covariates. The chi-square and t tests were used to determine significance.
Results:
A total of 11,869 cases met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis.Of these, 8,204 (69.1%; comprising 65.3% robotic and 34.7% laparoscopic) underwent MIS, while 3,655 (30.9%) underwent OS. The rate of MBP was higher in the MIS group (16.0% vs.10.0%, p < 0.001). Within the MIS group, MBP was associated with reduced rates of postoperative ileus (0.9% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.02), while other complications were comparable.Propensity score matching showed no association between MBP and postoperative ileus.However, a lower rate of 30-day readmission in the MBP group became statistically significant (4.4% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.01). Conversely, patients in the MBP group also demonstrated higher rates of pneumonia (1.29% vs. 0.46%, p = 0.002) and pulmonary embolism (0.6% vs. 0%, p < 0.001) after matching.
Conclusion
MBP practice prior to nephrectomy is infrequent in both OS and MIS cases, with minor differences in perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing MIS. Routine MBP should continue to be excluded from the standard of care for nephrectomy in the MIS era.
4.Assessment of mechanical bowel preparation prior to nephrectomy in the minimally invasive surgery era: insights from a national database analysis in the United States
Stephen SCHMIT ; Kamil MALSHY ; Alexander HOMER ; Borivoj GOLIJANIN ; Christopher TUCCI ; Rebecca ORTIZ ; Sari KHALEEL ; Elias HYAMS ; Dragan GOLIJANIN
Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery 2024;27(3):165-171
Purpose:
This study was performed to evaluate the association between mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and perioperative outcomes following nephrectomy in the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) era.
Methods:
All partial and radical nephrectomies between 2019 and 2021 from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were evaluated. Thirty-day perioperative outcomes were compared between groups where MBP was performed vs. not, in both the MIS and open surgery (OS) cohorts. A propensity score matching technique was utilized within MIS cases to control for covariates. The chi-square and t tests were used to determine significance.
Results:
A total of 11,869 cases met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis.Of these, 8,204 (69.1%; comprising 65.3% robotic and 34.7% laparoscopic) underwent MIS, while 3,655 (30.9%) underwent OS. The rate of MBP was higher in the MIS group (16.0% vs.10.0%, p < 0.001). Within the MIS group, MBP was associated with reduced rates of postoperative ileus (0.9% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.02), while other complications were comparable.Propensity score matching showed no association between MBP and postoperative ileus.However, a lower rate of 30-day readmission in the MBP group became statistically significant (4.4% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.01). Conversely, patients in the MBP group also demonstrated higher rates of pneumonia (1.29% vs. 0.46%, p = 0.002) and pulmonary embolism (0.6% vs. 0%, p < 0.001) after matching.
Conclusion
MBP practice prior to nephrectomy is infrequent in both OS and MIS cases, with minor differences in perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing MIS. Routine MBP should continue to be excluded from the standard of care for nephrectomy in the MIS era.
5.Assessment of mechanical bowel preparation prior to nephrectomy in the minimally invasive surgery era: insights from a national database analysis in the United States
Stephen SCHMIT ; Kamil MALSHY ; Alexander HOMER ; Borivoj GOLIJANIN ; Christopher TUCCI ; Rebecca ORTIZ ; Sari KHALEEL ; Elias HYAMS ; Dragan GOLIJANIN
Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery 2024;27(3):165-171
Purpose:
This study was performed to evaluate the association between mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and perioperative outcomes following nephrectomy in the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) era.
Methods:
All partial and radical nephrectomies between 2019 and 2021 from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were evaluated. Thirty-day perioperative outcomes were compared between groups where MBP was performed vs. not, in both the MIS and open surgery (OS) cohorts. A propensity score matching technique was utilized within MIS cases to control for covariates. The chi-square and t tests were used to determine significance.
Results:
A total of 11,869 cases met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis.Of these, 8,204 (69.1%; comprising 65.3% robotic and 34.7% laparoscopic) underwent MIS, while 3,655 (30.9%) underwent OS. The rate of MBP was higher in the MIS group (16.0% vs.10.0%, p < 0.001). Within the MIS group, MBP was associated with reduced rates of postoperative ileus (0.9% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.02), while other complications were comparable.Propensity score matching showed no association between MBP and postoperative ileus.However, a lower rate of 30-day readmission in the MBP group became statistically significant (4.4% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.01). Conversely, patients in the MBP group also demonstrated higher rates of pneumonia (1.29% vs. 0.46%, p = 0.002) and pulmonary embolism (0.6% vs. 0%, p < 0.001) after matching.
Conclusion
MBP practice prior to nephrectomy is infrequent in both OS and MIS cases, with minor differences in perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing MIS. Routine MBP should continue to be excluded from the standard of care for nephrectomy in the MIS era.
6.Assessment of mechanical bowel preparation prior to nephrectomy in the minimally invasive surgery era: insights from a national database analysis in the United States
Stephen SCHMIT ; Kamil MALSHY ; Alexander HOMER ; Borivoj GOLIJANIN ; Christopher TUCCI ; Rebecca ORTIZ ; Sari KHALEEL ; Elias HYAMS ; Dragan GOLIJANIN
Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery 2024;27(3):165-171
Purpose:
This study was performed to evaluate the association between mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and perioperative outcomes following nephrectomy in the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) era.
Methods:
All partial and radical nephrectomies between 2019 and 2021 from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were evaluated. Thirty-day perioperative outcomes were compared between groups where MBP was performed vs. not, in both the MIS and open surgery (OS) cohorts. A propensity score matching technique was utilized within MIS cases to control for covariates. The chi-square and t tests were used to determine significance.
Results:
A total of 11,869 cases met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis.Of these, 8,204 (69.1%; comprising 65.3% robotic and 34.7% laparoscopic) underwent MIS, while 3,655 (30.9%) underwent OS. The rate of MBP was higher in the MIS group (16.0% vs.10.0%, p < 0.001). Within the MIS group, MBP was associated with reduced rates of postoperative ileus (0.9% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.02), while other complications were comparable.Propensity score matching showed no association between MBP and postoperative ileus.However, a lower rate of 30-day readmission in the MBP group became statistically significant (4.4% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.01). Conversely, patients in the MBP group also demonstrated higher rates of pneumonia (1.29% vs. 0.46%, p = 0.002) and pulmonary embolism (0.6% vs. 0%, p < 0.001) after matching.
Conclusion
MBP practice prior to nephrectomy is infrequent in both OS and MIS cases, with minor differences in perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing MIS. Routine MBP should continue to be excluded from the standard of care for nephrectomy in the MIS era.